They weren’t quite as welcome elsewhere. Political scientist Elisabeth Cohen, writing
in the Washington Post, reports that in 1805, the Supreme Court heard the first
challenges to the citizenship of those who had fought on the English side in
the Revolution; the Court wisely ruled that even fighting on the wrong side during
the Revolution was not an impediment to U.S. citizenship. Cohen writes that the principle established by the Court was
that only three things should matter for citizenship – a reasonable period of
residence, a decent knowledge of the workings of American democracy, and a good
moral character. There were not even
those restrictions on residence. Records
of entry into the country were not even kept until 1820. More than one of our early American ancestors
was running from the law of the place they came from on their entry into the
U.S. Our founding fathers believed, and
explicitly stated, in Congress and elsewhere, that the best qualification for
American citizenship was the experience of living here. Country of origin, life before entry or
reasons for coming did not matter. Agricultural
workers, younger sons of nobility, fleers from the German draft and poor house
residents were the stuff our country was made of.
Back then, reasonable residence was defined as
five years; when, in a fit of xenophobia, the Congress raised the residence
requirement to 14 years, President Jefferson protested so strongly that
Congress reversed itself. Jefferson was
equally indignant at the idea of long term residence without the prospect of
citizenship. He wrote that that such a
residence without a reasonable prospect of citizenship created “semi-citizens”
- an underclass of people, taxed but without representation, that was bound to
lead to social turmoil and civil unrest.
In 1801, speaking to the opening session of congress, Jefferson painted
such residence without citizenship as denying the asylum and “privileges” for
which the founding fathers had fought.
It’s amazing how people pick and choose among
Constitutional principles. Social
conservatives swear allegiance daily to a strict interpretation of the
Constitution based on the “original intent” of the founding fathers, then
immediately go out and argue against a “path to citizenship” which the founding
fathers cherished. They call people “illegal
aliens” when the founders would have repudiated the very idea of such “illegality”
as contrary to the basic principles of the country. The
founding fathers’ principles were totally forgotten back in 1920 when national
quotas were set for entry. Nowadays we get ever angrier about the presence in
our country of those whom the founders would have recognized as kindred spirits
and welcomed with open arms. We seek immigration reforms the founders would have thought heinous, not because they go too far in easing restrictions, but because they are far from enough. Permanent worker visas are a major improvement over what we have, but they still create the kind of "semi-citizens" about which Jefferson warned. We can do better.
We need to remember both our own country’s needs,
for willing workers of all kinds and from everywhere, and to remember the reasons
this country was built in the first place. We build border walls when our founding
fathers set out to create open doors. We
claim that all are created equal, then deny equality to millions of those who
have lived and worked hard here for years.
Those Hessians, through living here, saw the blessings of liberty, and
reached out to acquire them, and they were welcomed. If we truly seek “the blessings of liberty
for ourselves and our posterity”, we need to welcome their modern counterparts
also.
No comments:
Post a Comment